Blogogetics

Biblical Government - Theocracy

1 Samuel 8:7 “The LORD said to Samuel…they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.” The Biblical worldview combined with the common grace of general revelation teaches man that God is King and ruler over the earth and that mankind ought to worship and serve him as governing King over our lives, families, and societies.

Biblical Theocrat - Jesus is King

John 18:37 “Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.’” For Christians, Jesus is our God and King and we listen to his voice. Jesus clearly demonstrated and stated that he is king, regardless of whatever current men may be ruling in a particular geographical local or country.

The Dual Advent of King Jesus - A Kenotic Incarnation

Philippians 2:5-8 ” Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. In Jesus’ first coming he refrained from displaying his military power and political glory in order to live a perfect life and die for those he came to save.
[Read more →]

Tags: Goverment by Duane Smets
1 Comment »

The New Perspective of Paul (NPP): A scholarly re-interpretation of Paul’s thought concerning justification by faith which has been held by Protestants since the reformation. The new interpretation is that justification is not a legal status of one’s standing before God but rather filial declaration by God that Jesus is the messiah of God’s people.

Main Points of NPP:
- Judaism was a religion of grace and inclusivism rather exclusivistic communal competition and striving for individual righteousness with God.
- Law was not something one used to earn favor with God but was merely a Jew’s identity mark as being a people of God.
- Jews boasting that they were elect/favored/chosen was the main problem Paul is addressing in Romans.
- Justification does not have to do with one’s standing before God but one’s identity with a people group of God.
- Jesus does not satisfy the wrath of God and then transfer that acquired righteousness to us.
- A person does not need to individually put faith in Jesus but just realize God accepts them as they are and join the community of God.

Main Proponents of NPP:
- Dr. James D.G. Dunn
- Dr. E.P. Sanders
- Dr. N.T. Wright

My Contentions:
- Judaism was clearly one of exclusivism and religious competition both according to Jesus and Paul and this is not eisogesis (Mat 5:17-20, Phil 3:4-8 ). Notice Jesus distinction of the individual ["whoever" vs. "others" and what they are called] and notice Paul’s use of “I” and “myself.”
- “Law” is used in three different ways in Romans. To minimalize these contextual and exegetical observations and to reduce them to merely being a “boundary marker” is to do violence to the text.
1) universal moral law > ex. Rom 2:14-15
2) Jewish Torah > ex. Rom 7:1-6
3) principle of the way sin works > ex. Rom 7:21-23.
- The main problem Paul is addressing in Romans is sin, idolatry deep in mankind’s heart, not boasting (Rom 1:18-:24).
- A thorough study of the Greek word, dikaisune clearly shows that righteousness is not merely communal identity. Here is a link to my work on the diakio word group in Romans 1-8: dikaiosune.pdf
- A study of the word “propitation” in Rom 3:25 and a study of the word “counts” in Rom 4:23-24 clearly teach the imputed righteousness of Christ. Here are links to my work dealing with these passages: propitiation.pdf and imputation.pdf
- Propenents of NPP utilize a form of “chronological snobbery” as C.S. Lewis once described it. Basically this means they caricaturize the classical reformed view of
justication by faith as being primitive and scholastically unwarranted and that if one was to believe this “new” theory, only then could they claim intellectual warrant.
- I believe NPP is self-refuting in its charges against cultural eisogesis. NPP reeks of the postmodern virtue of pluralistic inclusivism and is not the result of solid exegesis but rather the attempt to force Paul and Romans into a postmodern framework.
- I believe that NPP is dangerous and is heresy because it eliminates not only the Jew’s need for Jesus but as a result all other’s need. Faith is not merely a realization of what you already are. This is a serious conflagration between the doctrines of justification and sanctification.
- An acceptance of this doctrine will set the church back to a pre-reformation setting and the gospel will be lost. As Martin Luther said, “justification by faith” is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls. Below is a brief bibliography on the subject:

In favor of NPP:
_ James Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians.
(Louisville:Westminster/John Knox, 1990) ISBN 0664250955
_ E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. (Fortress, 1977) ISBN 0800618998
_ N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity?. (Eerdmans, 1997) ISBN 0802844456

Refuting NPP:
_ D.A. Carson, Peter O’Brien, and Mark Seifrid (eds.), Justification And Variegated Nomism. 2 volumes (Baker Academic, 2001 & 2004) vol. 1 - ISBN 080102272X / vol. 2 - ISBN 0801027411
_ Piper, John. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. (Crossway, 2007) ISBN 9781581349641

Tags: General Info by Duane Smets
2 Comments »

prolegomena
- the purpose of this work is to record my thoughts and study concerning the subject of women in the family and ministry and to establish our church’s stance on the subject.
- the two primary positions on this subject, within evangelicalism, are the complementarian view and the egalitarian view. the complementarian view is that men and women are different both physically and nonphysically in their makeup as human persons and that these differences are intended to complement each other in human relationships and communities. the egalitarian views is that men and women may be different physically but internally are not different in any way and that such a makeup intends for men and women to function in any role they desire.
- I knowingly enter this discourse aware that there are a significant number of Godly men and women scholars1 on both sides of this issue. due to this fact, I believe this subject ought to be approached in much humility and much charity with a fervent commitment against dogmatism.2
- I also enter into this discourse with the craving intent to allow Scripture and reason to have the first and foremost authority subjugating to their final say whatever emotions, experiences, and presuppositions i may have or have ever had. to their final say it is my prayer that I would pour contempt on all my pride and
humbly bow my head before the holy instruction of God in heaven. on any issue the whole counsel of God’s Word ought to be both our goal and commitment.
- in light of the above statements, I would also like to add that I consider this issue adiaphora, a matter of non-essentialness. essential relativity3 is a misnomer4 in matters of doctrine. I consider matters of essentialness to strictly be matters pertaining to salvation. I believe that in all areas of non-essentialness that fellowship and instruction may and ought to take place within the unity we have as the body of Christ (sometimes the common quip “to agree to disagree” and love one another is also used to describe this friendship and bond that differing Christians may have). in addition, I believe areas of non-essentialness ought never to divide or disjoin believers in Christ, but we ought always to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).”
- the contour of this study appears first in the form of 37 reasons why I have been persuaded from a previous position of egalitarianism to a complementarian position, followed by 15 responses to the arguments/objections of the egalitarian position.
[Read more →]

Tags: Relationships by Duane Smets
No Comments »